VulnerabilityPublished 30 May 2025

CVE-2025-48936: zitadel · Open Redirect

Affects zitadelSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 8.1 High · fixed in 3.2.2 : patch zitadel soon.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 11:42 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

8.1High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.3% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 33% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 3.2.2, 2.71.10, 2.70.12

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:R/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Required
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: High
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Required: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires a user to take some action before the vulnerability can be exploited.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: High: There is total loss of confidentiality, resulting in all resources within the impacted component being divulged to the attacker. Alternatively, access to only some restricted information is obtained, but the disclosed information presents a direct, serious impact.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 30 May 2025
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade zitadel/zitadel to 3.2.2, 2.71.10 or 2.70.12.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
GitHubzitadel/zitadel`pkg:github/zitadel/zitadel`Other threats	Affected <2.70.12 <2.71.10 <3.2.2	Fixed in 2.70.12 2.71.10 3.2.2

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

European organizations should immediately verify their Zitadel deployment versions and upgrade to patched versions 2.70.12, 2.71.10, or 3.2.2 as applicable. If immediate patching is not feasible, organizations should implement strict validation and sanitization of the Forwarded and X-Forwarded-Host headers at the web server or reverse proxy level to prevent host header injection attacks. Additionally, enforcing Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) or passwordless authentication for all user accounts will mitigate the risk of unauthorized password resets even if the secret code is compromised. Organizations should also educate users to be cautious of password reset emails and suspicious links, and implement email security controls such as DMARC, DKIM, and SPF to reduce phishing risks. Monitoring logs for unusual password reset requests and anomalous header values can help detect exploitation attempts. Finally, security teams should review and harden the overall password reset workflow to ensure URLs are constructed only from trusted sources and not influenced by user-controllable headers.

Description

Zitadel is open-source identity infrastructure software. Prior to versions 2.70.12, 2.71.10, and 3.2.2, a potential vulnerability exists in the password reset mechanism. ZITADEL utilizes the Forwarded or X-Forwarded-Host header from incoming requests to construct the URL for the password reset confirmation link. This link, containing a secret code, is then emailed to the user. If an attacker can manipulate these headers (e.g., via host header injection), they could cause ZITADEL to generate a password reset link pointing to a malicious domain controlled by the attacker. If the user clicks this manipulated link in the email, the secret reset code embedded in the URL can be captured by the attacker. This captured code could then be used to reset the user's password and gain unauthorized access to their account. This specific attack vector is mitigated for accounts that have Multi-Factor Authentication (MFA) or Passwordless authentication enabled. This issue has been patched in versions 2.70.12, 2.71.10, and 3.2.2.

Impact

For European organizations using Zitadel for identity and access management, this vulnerability poses a significant risk of account takeover through password reset abuse. Successful exploitation could lead to unauthorized access to sensitive systems and data, potentially resulting in data breaches, identity theft, and disruption of business operations. The compromise of user accounts could also facilitate lateral movement within networks, privilege escalation, and unauthorized access to critical resources. Organizations relying on Zitadel without enforcing MFA or passwordless authentication are particularly vulnerable. Given Zitadel's role in managing authentication and identity, exploitation could undermine trust in the organization's security posture and lead to regulatory compliance issues under GDPR if personal data is exposed. The requirement for user interaction (clicking a malicious link) means phishing campaigns could be used to exploit this vulnerability, increasing the risk in environments where users are not well trained against social engineering attacks.

CWE-601URL Redirection to Untrusted Site ('Open Redirect') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: LowOWASP Top 10 A01:2025: Broken Access Control (opens in a new tab)
The web application accepts a user-controlled input that specifies a link to an external site, and uses that link in a redirect.
Implementation · Input Validation
Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does.
Architecture and Design
Use an intermediate disclaimer page that provides the user with a clear warning that they are leaving the current site. Implement a long timeout before the redirect occurs, or force the user to click on the link. Be careful to avoid XSS problems (CWE-79) when generating the disclaimer page.
Architecture and Design · Enforcement by Conversion
When the set of acceptable objects, such as filenames or URLs, is limited or known, create a mapping from a set of fixed input values (such as numeric IDs) to the actual filenames or URLs, and reject all other inputs.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Mass Assignment (opens in a new tab)
Authorization (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.1.5 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Cross-Site Flashing (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Jul 2025, 21:25 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-601

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats